I’ve gotten into the ‘lazy, cowardly habit’ of rolling for an NPC and declaring the obstacle for vs tests (Codex pg. 141). I’m wondering what people’s thoughts are on this?
I’ve been doing this for the sake of speed, mainly for things like observation. For something like observation, it is meant to almost always be a vs test, but for the sake of speed should I instead just set the obstacle without rolling the dice? Or, am I perhaps rolling too much (not multiple rolls of the same skill, just too many rolls generally), and so should stick to the flow of a full vs test?
I’m also possibly being a coward and not wanting to announce how many dice the NPC has. There’s a secondary concern there, that if the party assume B4 for a single NPC, they can estimate the number of NPC they’re trying to sneak past. I suppose though BW is not a hidden infromation game, so I should not be considering this issue.
The procedure is for everyone in the test to gather their dice and roll simultaneously. Tell the players how many dice they’re rolling against and what the opposition’s intent is.
I’m inclined to think that you are over-valuing speed. This makes me think that maybe you are rolling too much. Or rather, that you are rolling insufficiently meaningful results.
I’m always partial to injecting some kind of active intent into a Versus test: You want to sneak past them? They want to spot you in time to take a shot on you.
I think you’re right, I’m over valuing speed. I think the vs tests I’m calling for I should be calling for, especially the observation ones. I think I’m also worrying too much about the info the players gain from number of dice.
I’ve also realised I can just call out the number of dice as opposed to the Ob and then roll while the players are deciding to do (we’re currently playing online and I’m using physical dice). So yes we might marginally slow things down as the players take longer to decide, but the added risk to them if more interesting. They’re deciding if they care about something, more than if they’re just trying to beat a flat Ob.
Interesting framing around npc intent, I’m usually thinking in terms of player intent, and giving some info on the failure state of a roll. But npc intent makes sense for a vs roll, they intent something if they succeed.
My perspective tends even stronger: not merely that it’s pleasing to have an NPC intent but that in a versus test the NPC always has an intent that is more than merely “don’t align with the PC’s desired outcome”. I might even—depending on circumstance—go harder on your example and say that merely “being able to do something” is the weakest consequence of spotting an intruder so the NPC’s intent is take the shot (i.e. success for them goes straight to what wound did they cause without a separate test to attack).
As you say, BW isn’t a hidden information game: in fact, it works really well when participants embrace situations where they know OOC that something is one way but choose to have the character act in ignorance or even mistake; so, there’s an argument that you should be worrying that the players aren’t gaining enough information from the number of dice.
For one, I’m not just talking about NPCs. The getting a shot off was actually an example from when I was a player. As a GM as well, I don’t see Observation as an appropriate skill for shooting someone.
If you think that being caught flat-footed while your enemy gathers their Crossbow dice at optimal range is the weakest consequence of getting spotted… We maybe have had different experiences in Range and Cover.
They sound the alarm. They block your path. They begin to follow you. These all seem weaker than, “You might get killed.” Especially since their missing is likely going to draw us into a Range and Cover…
This I think is the hidden dissonance: you are working on the assumption failure to hide becomes an extended Sneakers v Spotters conflict; whereas, I was starting from it being a one and done, i.e. if the Sneakers fail they still escape but Lucky John has taken an Incidental to the leg because one of the Spotters noticed him break from one bit of cover to another and snapped a shot off.
Neither situation is wrong in itself but which fits p32’s admonition to make consequences interesting, and leave it to players to be the ones who escalate situations to lethal depends on specifics of Intention.
In this case, the reason why the characters don’t stroll openly past the guards: Is it because they don’t want it known anyone was there? Is it because they don’t want it known they were there? Or is it because they don’t want to be attacked?
If it’s about concealing the presence of generic intruders, then a failure consequence of “one of the guards runs for the bell while the others take aim” seems interesting to me because it creates the choice between going “no witnesses” or trying to get away from pursuit.
If it’s about concealing the characters specifically were there then a failure consequence of “you escape but one of you has a distinctive and limiting injury” is classic tasty “I cut the paw off the wolf last night and this morning Farmer Simon went to the healer saying he had a terrible scythe accident” territory.